click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121027
20121104
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 114 (some duplicates have been removed)
. in this room, we have amazing people that are corporate, nonprofit, and government, all focused on challenge driven innovation in some way or another. this is a really powerful,interf people that are gathered here to look at how competitions can drive innovation. that's what tonight is all about, is, you know, the next step in creating a real wave of innovation. my job tonight is just to give you a little bit of background on what we are, what we're tiqp)q)s that we have.roup of so just to get going with that, i want to tell you a little bit about this thing called the night rover/< challenge. this is a collaboration between the clean tech open, unoodle, and nasa. it's a program from nasa's office of centennial challenges. and it's challengin the best innovators in america to create radical new energy storage technology. you know, way above what we have now. this is something very powerful, to be able to keep rovers going on the moon, in mars, things that could be useful, in your cell electric vehicles, something that just is a radical leap in new technology. but i don't want to go into a l
government audit and oversight committee today on monday october 29 here in the city and county of san francisco home of the world series champions giants. i am supervisor mark farrell. i am the chair of the committee and joined by supervisor chiu and will be joined by supervisor elsbernd. i want to thank the staff for covering today's meeting. madam clerk do we have any announcements? >> yes. please make sure to silent any electronic devices and items acted upon today will be on the agenda anyplace otherwise stated. q. can you do item one and two together please? >> item one is a hearing and resolution and "deja vu all over again: san francisco's technology needs a culture shock." >> thank you very much. president chiu. >> thank you mr. chair. i wanted to make a couple of introductory comments and thank you for taking part in this hearing and in particular i want to thank the civil grand jury report for looking at this topic. i decided to bring with me today these folders. these folders represent all of the documents i have been looking at in the last couple of years o
that these changes are moving technology sufficiently forward within city government? if you are then things will stay the same around here. the office of the mayor accuses the civil grand jury of not knowing much about technology in the city. yes, we start friday scratch but we spent a year learning directly from the leaders within city government within technology units throughout the city. we had some help since two of our five member investigation team are seasoned technology professionals. we interviewed more than 40 employees and elected officials, quite a few several times. we believed there was a good deal of candor in those interviews. not as much in the responses we're sorry to say. we did a great deal and discuss what we found with people in city government. we prepared findings and conclusions in the form of recommendations. every finding in our report was verified with additional interviews with the people providing that information. our report is factual, not fission. we believe. >> >> that city technology protects the status quo and at thes expense of cost savings a
campaign and government code 4.105 d. states that the ethics commiting shall investigate complaints under the section that alleged violations of local campaign finance lobbies and financial interest and government ethics laws, which commissioner hur pointed out. however, section 4.105 a, states. any person can file a complaint with the ethics commission alleging that a city officer or employee has engaged in improper activity by, again, violating campaign finance lobbying, conflicts of interest, or government ethics laws, regulations. the difference between them is that the complaints can be filed under 4.105 a. alleging many different violations of improper activities but under 4.105 d, not all of them are investigated pursuant to procedures in c3699-13. so the whole thing in my opinion is moot. . i believe that miss herrick, may have also have wrongly claimed that the california evidence code 1040, and its definition of official information, may have been misquoted and she may have incorrectly relied on deputy city attorney improper letter to the sunshine ordinance task force in which
government culture that the potential benefits to the san francisco community that have been raised, not just by us, are more than ignored. they are mocked by a city administration fearing change. we believe that only the mayor can make the changes that we and others have proposed. no one else has the direct authority over government operations than he has. he can do it if he is willing to put the passionate leadership he puts in attracting tech business to the city and improving the organization and technology within san francisco government. perhaps we have to wait for a different administration for there to be a fair hearing on ways to improve technology. perhaps you, the board of supervisors, can take up this challenge. we hope you will. there was a better ending to our title report, deja vu all over again. that is "where there is a will there is a way .". thank you. >> thank you for the time and effort put into that report. any questions right now president chiu. all right. with that i would like to ask the mayor's office to come up. cindy is here representing the mayor'
the city we didn't have a plan or a governance structure or coit and sun shet and talking about creating this structure and we were struggling how much money were we spending on it in the city? when i came here there wasn't a report? and so it has been a long and complex journey, and i think it will continue in these hearings and going forward to be one of the challenges. i think we use technology on a daily basis and work and we are engaged and are we getting our money's worth and getting the service we want? and i wanted to revisit and my staff will tell you it's easy to hammer on the things not going well and i want to re-cap of the last five years and whether we're making progress in solving the problems and some of the projects are project related, operationally related and to your point president chiu and look back over the last four cio's and embedded in the organization and we need to talk about those in different conversations and i will be brief and i don't want this to be a marketing campaign, but we have made significant accomplishments. we developed koitd and open tran
. there is no comprehensive annual report on the state of technology within city government presented to the mayor and the board of supervisors. agree. there is no annual reporting. we supposed to have biannual reporting and just as we have annual revisions to the ten year capital plan i think ict plan would benefit from annual review. 16. there is a scarcity in the data separate from departmental budgets. agree. it's difficult to get data from individual departments and what should be consolidated. finding number 17 -- and i have to point out to the civil grand jury aren't you glad you had all these find ?tion number 17, coit focuses on the implementation of city wide projects and not the cost and savings from the project. i agree. while these have been attempted for city wide it's minimal and proper departments are not inventized to calculate the savings and costs of this and potential lose resources. finding number 18. there's a need for city wide ict asset management system. 18. i agree. departments should provide this data to the department of technology. the fact it's not done is
would know that 1040 should take precedence over the city charters or this particular government conduct code which is not even at the city charter level, if i am right. >> 1040 b, clearly states, a public entity is a privilege to refuse to disclose official information... unless disclosure is forbidden. there is nothing >> in the act of the u.s. congress or any other statue that forbids the disclosure of the information that i am seeking. >> except that there is another paragraph, mr. shaw. i mean the basis for miss herrick's analysis is 1040 b2. she is not claiming that there is an act of congress that forbids this. she is claiming that the necessity for perceiving confidentiality out weighs disclosure. >> commissioner hur, let me respond to that question and that is, sunshine ordinance, if you have ever read it specifically bars every agency in san francisco from exerting the official information privilege under that balancing test. >> didn't you just tell me that state law trumps the city charter and all city ordinances? >> i mean, what you just were arguing one minute ago. and ber r
the disclosure of confidential information in the government code 6276 and 6276.32, which are part of the public records act, as well as the government code section that the controller's office relies on in terms of the protection of the whistle blower complaints and that is government code section 53087.6. so while i agree, with mr. shaw that the reliance on 6254 f of the government code would not be appropriate, there are other code sections that do protect the disclosure of confidential information and they have been cited in my memo to the commission. >> mr. shaw, i think that you... >> wait. >> you have exhaustively gone through your arguments. i have already given you far more than we would give someone if we were using the new procedures. >> you just dismiss it. >> i am going to give you three more minutes to provide, i think, that we have already gotten through about page 8 of your arguments that you have explained. so i will give you a few more minutes. >> in the... to miss herrick's comment now that there are other codes that may be involved, curiously, and more curiously, none of thos
ated. thank you. >> commissioners, ray heart, director of san francisco open government. i do read these reports. i read every one of them, front to back and i go back and make notes on them and everything else because i really do want to come here and make meaningful comment. for example, category number two investigation enforcement programs number of complaints what does that tell us? how long have those complaints been sitting? i know for a fact that the 9 for the sunshine ordinance task force have been sitting there for god knows how long. so basically, i could have to... i don't think that it is unfair to assume that some of these other complaints may just be sitting in someone's desk aging and eventually someone will get around to it and someone will put it up. these really are meanless statistics. and nine people filed a complaint, and how many were referred from sunshine? how many of you heard, well, we know that. one. gomez, where did that go? nowhere. because the mayor only wants to use you if it suits his political ends. i told you that before. he hung you out to dry, h
jury spent more time on. this is the trend we're seeing in agencies and governments around the country. by in large most governments have a growing decentralization and we know we're not doing that for everything but there are functions that need to be decentralized and we know there are successes here in california and the state is expected to save $3 billion. denver went through a great consolidation and saving millions of dollars. what are those entities doing that we're not? what cultural changes or cultural values have they implemented from a leadership standpoint that we're lacking? >> to be frank i think the organizational stomach really for how much it up sets the organization to go through the changes? the company i worked before did out sowzing of it and we went into states and took over the it operations and we could save a government millions of dollars by doing that, but for a government to centralize or out source it it's disruptive, up setting project to have happen, and i think the majority of us in the city feel enough progress is being made to not take that drastic
the authority for them in the administrative code as governing their own plans and actions. for this i agree. finding 30. neither coit or the cio believe in their ability to enforce these policies and initiatives and i patiently agree with that statement. while coit likes to behave they have the authority to enforce policies and initiatives because it's a diffused body there is no one to hold them accountable. the last finding there is no secure or immediate consequences for departments failing to implement in city wide initiatives and meet time lines for compleetion. i agree. there are no consequences for them to meet time lines for completion and the last is recommendation 19 which is the recommendation is that the mayor provide consistent passionate and aggressive leadership in the field of city wide technology fostering progress and garnderring agreement moon departments and cooperative and cohesive culture. the mayor has stated that has been implemented. i would like to say i hope that is implemented on in the next six months and demand accountability for budgets and deadlines a
came into the city, we had good government and projects that went forward on time every time. a city that came together and if you can't see that because you're so identified with diversity, then you need to go get your eyes checked. we're so tired of it in this city. i would get away with anything with your attitude. it's not diverse enough. you could take over any country with these type of politics because it's about victimizing its very own citizens. biting the hand that feeds you. if you think that that has any sustainability in this city or any city in the world, you're absolutely deluded. thank you very much. i grew up with a father from the middle east and brothers that were diverse as any family on earth. but i tell you what, the politics in this city is so bad, that it has to change. thank you. >> seeing no other speaker, public comment is closed. if you can call the next item. >> 10 adjournment. >> two words, go giants. meeting adjourned. >> so nicely here, and very happy that all of you could come out and join us, you know, on this evening. my namey. the director of the n
carefully. >> commissioners, ray heart, director of san francisco government. the sunshine ordinance section 6716 minutes reads, any person during speaking during public comment period may supply a brief written summary of their comments which shall if no more than 150 words be included in the minutes. that is the plain, english, reading of the ordinance. and the sunshine task force has ruled four times, including once against this body that in the minutes, means in the minutes. yet, mr. saint crow insists that he is keeping them out because the city attorney says you can. in the task force case 11088, which ethics commission was found in violation of the ordinance, to date this commission has refused to comply and refused to hear the referal from sotf from ethics, of course what you produced is 134-page response trying to justify it which is a load of crap. why are you so afraid of having comments from the public be presented accurately in the official records of your meetings. why do you insist on placing the 150 word summaries in an alternative location, substituting in
. >> yes. >> ray heart, director of san francisco open government and you can sit there and attribute every negative and other motives that you want to me. i don't care. very frankly i have told you and every other body that i have appeared to before that my only two reasons to going to public meetings are to make sure that the nems members of the public are allowed to speak and allowed to gain access to public records that they need to speak intelligently to certain issues. i went to an arts commission meeting where i watched a commissioner respond to a public comment which was polite suggesting that they needed to have sunshine, with comments like mr. whoever you are i don't appreciate be lectured by someone like you. and i am going to do everything in my power to make sure that you are no longer part of this any more. and it gets to the point where people who take a vow to support and defend the constitution start to abuse members of the public. i know that it has gone too far. and i know that you don't like the comments. basically what i found on a lot of these city commissions they wa
. >> commissioners, ray heart, san francisco, open government. despite all of the complaints in this report regarding the low staffing levels it is hard to see what benefits the public gains for expenditures of millions of dollars each year. even the budget figures listed in this report are impossible to understand. the latest six years of figures range from 3.6 million, to 8.4 million. that is an average of 6 million dollars a year. what do the citizens of san francisco get for this $6 million amount? honestly, reading the report there would not be seen to be much bang for the buck. i have heard estimates anywhere from 1.2 to 1.8 million just for the investigation of the sheriff. the referals for the sunshine ordinance task force are still after 14 years not being heard. the civil grand jury report is dismissed in this report, with only a link to the report and a link to your response. and so basically you did not even feel it was worth commenting on the civil grand jury report. what exactly do the citizens of this city get for this $6 million a year? if you kind of price it out, this commission, it
house minority leader, nancy pelosi at at ceremony to mark the approval of the federal government grant for the central subway. this is a commitment of almost a billion dollars to a project that has been on i books for a very long time. we want to take this opportunity to congratulate the sfmta on reaching that important mile stone and thank everyone involved in making that funding possible. of course, including the members of the board that have been supportive for this and advocated for this project and our star that have been working on this. secondly, on october 12th, we marked a major milestone. we have the ground breaking of the presidio park way. we were honored to have minority leader pelosi as well as the highway administrator, victor mendez and malcolm dougherty. we want to thank speaker pelosi and the project has received significant amount of money be it stimulus money to open it. the first phase opened in april. this second phase is important because it would be delivered through a public-private partnership it will rely on a concession to deliver the project on time and fi
on san francisco government tv, sfg tv and channel 78. and thank you for your attention. at this time point in time we are conduct our swearing in process. if you plan to speak at any part of tonight's meeting, please stand and raise your right hand and say "i do" after being sworn in or affirmed. please note that any member the public can take this oath according to the sunshine ordinance in the code. >> do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> i do. >> thank you. >> vice president fung, we have one housekeeping issue, 12-041, this is regarding a letter of determination, having to do 651 to 655 geary street, and we need to vote to move it. is that a motion? commissioner lazarus. thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none. please call the roll. >> on that motion from commissioner lazarus to reschedule item five, 12-041 to january 9, 2013. on that motion. >> fung. >> aye. >> thomas. >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 3-0, that is rescheduled to january 9. >> thank you, moving to item
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 114 (some duplicates have been removed)